Young Earth Creationism

[+Sherapy]

how do you know there is no evidence for it? Nobody actually sits down and listens to a creationists ideas or reads the evidence with an objective mind. Anything to do with God is preposterous to the non-believers and they won't even entertain the thought for five seconds. They just dismiss it. I used to be an evolutionist and AFTER opening my mind and really looking at it, I don't necessarily believe everything science says. Science hasn't really done anything to earn my trust.

What's the evidence then? Someones perspective on creationism is not evidence for it.

You used to be an evolutionist ? What does that mean?

Edited October 21, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Jor-el]

What's the evidence then? Someones perspective on creationism is not evidence for it.

You used to be an evolutionist ? What does that mean?

When I was an atheist I was not an evolutionist... how many ways can facts be analyzed and yet come to different conclusions? (and yes we've had this discussion before )

The true answer is many.... only one of those leads to evolution as the concept is presently accepted.

[Agent. Mulder]

Again, I said I don't exactly believe either one fully. I believe science has made some mistakes and I believe that the bible can and has been mistranslated. I don't know what I fully believe. I just believe God made the earth. I don't know how and it's really not all that important.

What I want is for someone to look at the creationist views and actually disprove them...not just write them off. If you can explain the "evidence" the creationists use, then hey, you have a reason for your beliefs. But what creationists do is take something proven by science and say, "hey, this proves young earth creationism."

According to the link, not enough mud on the ocean floor proves the earth is young. What is the counter argument to that? That's why I get upset...nobody offers one. They just post threads like this and post how ignorant it is to believe in such a thing. Well, it's a valid piece of evidence YOU said doesn't exist. Prove it wrong. So really, what this discussion becomes is what evidence out weighs the other.

Are you serious?

Thats been done.

And what about mud on the ocean floor? How far down? Where?

[Agent. Mulder]

hey, I like you Mulder, try not to be so mean to me

I believe in wind, but I can't see it. I believe in gravity, but I can't see it. I can't see a lot of things. But I feel them. And on more than one occasion, I've felt God. It's something a person who has never taken God seriously can ever experience. I have witnessed miracles and the supernatural...things that only help prove the existence of God. And I didn't say science is complete trash either. I said I don't believe all of it. And I don't believe everything a pastor tells me either.

I accept wind. Why? Because i feel it physically. I see its results, Physically.

I accept gravity. Why? Because i feel its force physically. I see its power, physically.

Whats a "miracle" to you, or "supernatural"? And why do you hastily and eagerly jump to the god conclusion?

[+Sherapy]

When I was an atheist I was not an evolutionist... how many ways can facts be analyzed and yet come to different conclusions? (and yes we've had this discussion before )

The true answer is many.... only one of those leads to evolution as the concept is presently accepted.

Did you just agree with me Jor?

And it's because there is evidence for evolution, gobs of it. There is no evidence for creationism.

I have one husband not 2. Why is there not 2?Because there is evidence for 1.. Can I wish there was 2? Sure. Can I entertain the idea there is 2 ? Yes. Can I believe there is 2, even if the evidence says 1 of course. Can I believe there is none even when the evidence shows 1 . You bet ya.

In other words anyone is free to have faith, believe, entertain, like , hope for things, wish for things .

But what gives anything it's truth value is the available evidence.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Copasetic]

Again, I said I don't exactly believe either one fully. I believe science has made some mistakes and I believe that the bible can and has been mistranslated. I don't know what I fully believe. I just believe God made the earth. I don't know how and it's really not all that important.

What I want is for someone to look at the creationist views and actually disprove them...not just write them off. If you can explain the "evidence" the creationists use, then hey, you have a reason for your beliefs. But what creationists do is take something proven by science and say, "hey, this proves young earth creationism."

According to the link, not enough mud on the ocean floor proves the earth is young. What is the counter argument to that? That's why I get upset...nobody offers one. They just post threads like this and post how ignorant it is to believe in such a thing. Well, it's a valid piece of evidence YOU said doesn't exist. Prove it wrong. So really, what this discussion becomes is what evidence out weighs the other.

2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.(4)

The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

This is why people have problems with creationism. They are immoral. The study they cite for this (which by the way, this guy's website has simply copied this from other creationist authors, most likely without ever checking the reference for himself) is;

Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.

So I looked up the paper and read it real fast. Here is the abstract;

The total mass of sediments on the ocean floor is estimated to be 262 × 10²¹ g. The overall mass/age distribution is approximated by an exponential decay curve: (11.02 × 10²¹ g)e −0.0355t Ma. The mass/age distribution is a function of the area/age distribution of ocean crust, the supply of sediment to the deep sea, and submarine erosion and redeposition. About 140 × 10²¹ g of the sediment on the ocean floor is pelagic sediment, consisting of about 74% CaCO3, with the remainder opaline silica and red clay. Of the sediment on the ocean floor, 122 × 10²¹ g is detritus, mostly terrigenous, but a small portion (about 6 × 10²¹ g) is volcanic. Because very little pelagic sediment is obducted, virtually all of the pelagic sediment mass and some fraction of the terrigenous sediment is being subducted at a rate estimated to be about 1 × 10²¹ g per million years. The composition of sediment on the ocean floor differs significantly from that of average passive margin and continental sediment, so that the loss of ocean floor sediment through subduction may drive the composition of global sediment toward enrichment in silica, alumina, and potash and toward depletion in calcium.

You'll note the creationist authors claim; "According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.". They get this from:

virtually all of the pelagic sediment mass and some fraction of the terrigenous sediment is being subducted at a rate estimated to be about 1 × 10²¹ g per million years. By taking 10²¹ g per million years, converting to tons and then dividing by 1 million. And it does give you about a billion tons per year.

Now the creationists also claim; "water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean."

Unfortunately, that source is not available any longer (being published in the Proceedings of the USSR). Now, I don't want to say they are being dubious just yet, but that should in itself raise a skeptical eyebrow.

More importantly however, the authors use Hay et al.'s paper as scientific support. So why not use Hay et al, for the estimate of deposition of mass per year?

Hay provides a mass of 49.41*10²¹ g over the last 5 million years (they break each time interval into 5 million year periods). This means the rate of deposition in tons is about 1.102 billion tons per year. Or in other words .102 billion tons more than that being subducted over the same period.

Now one should also recall from Hay's abstract that this is for pelagic subduction only and that some (not a lot but some) is obducted each year as well. Also remember that these are estimates (you can't really go measure 10²¹ g) and while accurate still carry a percent error (probably a larger one than in most things we deal with in science). So can the percent error in measurement and obducted account for the .102 billion tons? I think that would be pretty likely, but Hay isn't finished yet!

So what is Hay really trying to say, is he supporting the creationist authors?

However, it can be estimated that if the overall mass has remained constant through time, between 150 and 250 x 102• g of ocean floor sediment are subducted every 180 m.y.. If, for simplicity, we assume 180 x x 1022g are subducted very 180 m.y.,t his means that 1 x 10T Mg is subducted every million years. Some of this material is underplated on the roof of the subduction zone to become blueschists, another portion is transformed into andesitic volcanics, another portion is melted and incorporated with other rock to become intrusives, and another fraction may be mixed back into the mantle. Thus 1 x 102• g per million years must be an approximate minimum for the loss of sediment from the sedimentary cycling system. This is essentially the same as the estimate of an upper limit of 1.1 _+ 0.5 x x 10T Mg per million years, cited as the quantity of sediments....

....from a different line of reasoning. It implies that if plate tectonics have been operating since the Archaean, a mass of sediment larger than the total mass presently in existence (about 2500 x 10²¹ g, according to Southamand Hay [1981]) has been subducted over the course of the Earth's history.

-My emphasis

Or in other words, the authors are suggesting the exact opposite of what creationists claim and that subducted material is being lost somewhere!!!!!! (Note here, that the authors also divide up the sediment into it's different constiutent parts, something necessary but overlooked by the creationist authors).

So what then do the authors propose?

........If most of this were subducted rather than obducted as the plate tectonic machine operated, it still implies that a mass of sediment approximately equivalent to the mass of sediment presently in existence has been lost from the sedimentary cycling system to become metamorphic or igneous rock. In this scenario the material being subducted would have a composition similar to the main body of sedimentary material and would not be a driving force in the evolution of sediments(.....) it may be that the factor exerting primary control on delivery of material to the ocean floor is the space available on subsiding passive margin shelves. Material which cannot be accommodated on the shelves must be passed on to the ocean floor. Hay et al. [1988] suggest that because calcium carbonate can be derived from ocean water along the entire length of the shelves and on carbonate banks whereas detrital sediment is injected at point sources (river mouths), the continental shelf and carbonate bank system may have operated more efficiently to remove carbonate prior to the appearance of abundant oceanic calcareous plankton 100 Ma.

So now its up to the reader to decide....Are these creationist immoral? I think the original author's "research" was clearly a "fact finding trip" where he just cited and strung together bits an pieces to fit the "evidence" into his already known ending (that supporting biblical creationism), is that immoral? From a professional and academic standpoint, surely. The other 10 billion creationists who've simply copied his "research" on the web? Well I don't think they are necessarily immoral, maybe naive and ignorant are better descriptions. They simply repost this garbage because they are under the illusion that the original creationist author (a man crusading for the what he believes the bible says mind you) is far too ethical to resort to such fraudulent academic behavior. The original creationist author then, is also preying upon the ignorance and trustfulness of his fellows.

[Copasetic]

how do you know there is no evidence for it? Nobody actually sits down and listens to a creationists ideas or reads the evidence with an objective mind. Anything to do with God is preposterous to the non-believers and they won't even entertain the thought for five seconds. They just dismiss it. I used to be an evolutionist and AFTER opening my mind and really looking at it, I don't necessarily believe everything science says. Science hasn't really done anything to earn my trust.

I've found that people that say things like this "I used to be an evolutionist" really don't understand science or evolution any better now than when they were "evolutionists".

For example, back on the first page, your description of how theories and hypotheses are used in science couldn't have been anymore wrong

[Copasetic]

When I was an atheist I was not an evolutionist... how many ways can facts be analyzed and yet come to different conclusions? (and yes we've had this discussion before )

The true answer is many.... only one of those leads to evolution as the concept is presently accepted.

Facts don't get "analyzed", facts are what they are-Facts. Points of data. In and of themselves they are useless in science. What you do analyze is lots of data fit into a model, or hypothesis if you will. You analyze it via all sorts of methods not including "I think this means....".

You do analyze it with things like statistical tests or predictive prowess. It is upon this analysis that we judge a model or hypothesis, not by what conclusion we "think" it might support. The number of people who are seemingly unfamiliar with how science is preformed saddens me

Of course, if one wants to practice "creation science" then by all means "analyzing facts" in a way you suggest or believe to be done is a good place to start.....

Edited October 21, 2010 by Copasetic

[questionmark]

So now its up to the reader to decide....Are these creationist immoral?

I will not try to judge the morality of the above, but will surely assert that it is quackery... of the worst kind. If he has a degree in geosciences and did not write that against better knowledge he should sue his university for fraud (which is the only thing you can call giving this bloke that degree).

[Euphorbia]

hey, I like you Mulder, try not to be so mean to me

I believe in wind, but I can't see it. I believe in gravity, but I can't see it. I can't see a lot of things. But I feel them. And on more than one occasion, I've felt God. It's something a person who has never taken God seriously can ever experience. I have witnessed miracles and the supernatural...things that only help prove the existence of God. And I didn't say science is complete trash either. I said I don't believe all of it. And I don't believe everything a pastor tells me either.

Just curious Saucy, what makes you believe certain things in science are true and others are false?

Also what makes you believe certain things a pastor will tell you but not others?

In other words, what makes you pick and choose what you pick and choose? What's it all based on?

[Copasetic]

I will not try to judge the morality of the above, but will surely assert that it is quackery... of the worst kind. If he has a degree in geosciences and did not write that against better knowledge he should sue his university for fraud (which is the only thing you can call giving this bloke that degree).

Money back at the least

[saucy]

For example, back on the first page, your description of how theories and hypotheses are used in science couldn't have been anymore wrong

No, I don't understand science. I'm not really all that interested in the process of science. I like the images we get from pointing Hubble into space and I like walking around in nature and enjoying all the things God created. I certainly love the pain medications I get to take to help my chronic back pain. Science has done good, but I'm no scientist. I admit that. But they way I described science was the basic information taught to me when I was in high school. So if that process is wrong, then write a letter to the schools and blame them for teaching me false things. This is why I don't necessarily "trust" science. How do I know what is being taught to me is right? Man is fallible, thus science is fallible. But to you it's 100% fact. It can't be 100% fact when the theories are constantly changing.

[Jor-el]

There is evidence for evolution, gobs of it. There is no evidence for creationism.

I have one husband not 2. Why is there not 2?Because there is evidence for 1.. Can I wish there was 2? Sure. Can I entertain the idea there is 2 ? Yes. Can I believe there is 2, even if the evidence says 1 of course. Can I believe there is none even when the evidence shows 1 . You bet ya.

In other words anyone is free to have faith, believe, entertain, like , hope for things, wish for things .

But what gives anything it's truth value is the available evidence.

Then let me give you a different view using the very same evidence that you accept...

All genes in every single living organism are related. Only a few are unique to a given species so if I was to create a new species in alab, i would use what was available to me. from all the available genes I could create any living thing I could possibly imagine.

Yet eh intersting thing is that the backbone of all these living things, whether they be plants or animals, would share an astounding number of the same genes with common functions.

In essence genes are akin to lego blocks and with these I can build anything. Does that mean they all have a common ancestor? or was there something that manipulated genes so that an infinite variety of species exist but all with the same building blocks of life?

We as related to a house fly or a mouse as we are to a primate and we share over a third of our genes with something like a yeast cell and sea sponges share almost 70 percent of human genes.

All life is built with "lego blocks" dear sheri, but it really doesn't mean they have common descent.

[Jor-el]

Facts don't get "analyzed", facts are what they are-Facts. Points of data. In and of themselves they are useless in science. What you do analyze is lots of data fit into a model, or hypothesis if you will. You analyze it via all sorts of methods not including "I think this means....".

You do analyze it with things like statistical tests or predictive prowess. It is upon this analysis that we judge a model or hypothesis, not by what conclusion we "think" it might support. The number of people who are seemingly unfamiliar with how science is preformed saddens me

Of course, if one wants to practice "creation science" then by all means "analyzing facts" in a way you suggest or believe to be done is a good place to start.....

So what it really means is that the standard paradigm of evolution is merely a model or hypothesis but by using the same points of data, one can in turn come up with a rival model or hypothesis that works just as well as yours does, and thus come up with different conclusions, is that not so?

[Copasetic]

Saucy-

Hopefully this opens your eyes a bit and you'll at least look into creationists "claims" a with a little more scientific skepticism (I look into all scientific claims this way, not just creationists--As everyone should).

See if maybe you can find answers to their other "claims" yourself-Despite what you think, most scientists have looked at creationist claims. The reason they aren't science is because those scientists either find flaws in their claims with current models (hypotheses) or there is new and better data available. Creationists are notoriously prone to repeating past mistakes. For instance, Henry Morris still publishes errors in first derivatives when discussing the rate of moon recession! Errors in first derivatives! Can you imagine that!

Anyway, thank you for the distraction. Its been hard to study this block with 4-5 hour study days (on top of classes ) and its getting harder to resist the darkside UM

[Copasetic]

No, I don't understand science. I'm not really all that interested in the process of science. I like the images we get from pointing Hubble into space and I like walking around in nature and enjoying all the things God created. I certainly love the pain medications I get to take to help my chronic back pain. Science has done good, but I'm no scientist. I admit that. But they way I described science was the basic information taught to me when I was in high school. So if that process is wrong, then write a letter to the schools and blame them for teaching me false things. This is why I don't necessarily "trust" science. How do I know what is being taught to me is right? Man is fallible, thus science is fallible. But to you it's 100% fact. It can't be 100% fact when the theories are constantly changing.

Might it not be equally as likely you didn't understand what they taught you? And not a case of them teaching you something incorrect?

[saucy]

Just curious Saucy, what makes you believe certain things in science are true and others are false?

Also what makes you believe certain things a pastor will tell you but not others?

In other words, what makes you pick and choose what you pick and choose? What's it all based on?

Because I don't believe we know it all. Religion as certainly messed a lot of stuff up. Science has messed a lot of stuff up. I don't like to fight about the petty details. I believe there's a God and He created the world and that's that. Science really is just the discovery of the world God created and CANNOT, in any way or fashion prove or disprove God. A lot of pastors have stood up in pulpits and preached boldfaced lies and don't really care about the people as much as they love the money the people put in the collection plates. While there are a lot of families in the church who are poor and suffering, pastors are buying million dollar homes and driving expensive cars. It's not right.

And science can't seem to make up it's mind. One day eggs are bad for you, then they're good for you, then they're bad. You can get fifty scientists in a room and ask them a theory on one subject and get fifty different ideas. And how do I know that science isn't forged by scientists so they can get their names on an important discovery and earn the big bucks? Scientists aren't corrupt?

[saucy]

Might it not be equally as likely you didn't understand what they taught you? And not a case of them teaching you something incorrect?

Then you tell me what the scientific process is. I thought it was come up with a hypothesis, then you run tests to prove if your theory is correct or not. There's a little more to it than that, but that's the jest of what I learned.

[FurthurBB]

What's the point of a discussion if you're just going to gang up on us, laugh at us, then call us idiots?

You believe in young earth creationism, but were raised as a staunch atheist? I have an extremely hard time believing this.

[Copasetic]

So what it really means is that the standard paradigm of evolution is merely a model or hypothesis but by using the same points of data, one can in turn come up with a rival model or hypothesis that works just as well as yours does, and thus come up with different conclusions, is that not so?

No that is not so. The modern synthesis (what you might call "evolutionary theory") is a scientific theory; an agglomeration of hypotheses, data, "facts", observations etc which leads to predictions of empirical truths (and it does this very well). Those models and hypotheses which are "rolled" into the modern synthesis have been done so for two reasons. Because they have been unable to be falsified (either through rejection of them, or acceptance of 'null hypotheses') and because have done this over the test of time.

The modern synthesis (evolutionary theory) explains very the well the natural phenomena of biological evolution (just as say the "quanta theory of light (radiation)" explains the observed phenomena of the photoelectric effect), or the "fact" of evolution if you will.

There is no rival theory to modern synthesis which can account for the millions of pieces of data as well as make predictions about empirical truths.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Copasetic

[Euphorbia]

Because I don't believe we know it all. Religion as certainly messed a lot of stuff up. Science has messed a lot of stuff up. I don't like to fight about the petty details. I believe there's a God and He created the world and that's that. Science really is just the discovery of the world God created and CANNOT, in any way or fashion prove or disprove God. A lot of pastors have stood up in pulpits and preached boldfaced lies and don't really care about the people as much as they love the money the people put in the collection plates. While there are a lot of families in the church who are poor and suffering, pastors are buying million dollar homes and driving expensive cars. It's not right.

And science can't seem to make up it's mind. One day eggs are bad for you, then they're good for you, then they're bad. You can get fifty scientists in a room and ask them a theory on one subject and get fifty different ideas. And how do I know that science isn't forged by scientists so they can get their names on an important discovery and earn the big bucks? Scientists aren't corrupt?

All science has to be corroborated by other scientists. If other scientists find faults in the original scientists claims then it becomes invalidated. The science we are presenting to you is considered fact by a vast majority of scientists...

[FurthurBB]

I don't know where my beliefs lie when it comes to creationism. My main beef with either creationism or evolution is that I wasn't there to witness it. So who wins? I don't know. I believe God created the world. He could've done it in six days if he wanted to. When he created everything, it was done with maturity. Adam and Eve were older...old enough to bare children. All the trees were grown with fruit on them and the animals were also older. He created the stars so that they were already visible and the strata and earth was formed exactly how it is...with the appearance of age.

On the other hand, evolution comes to us as "fact" but in reality, it still remains a "theory". Again, the scientific process can't be completed in this matter because after hypothesis, you must be able to witness your hypothesis in action to say if you're right or not. Science can't witness the beginning of time to say for certain what really happened. If carbon dating or whatever dating is 100% accurate, then why can't they nail down the age of the earth? It seems like it's always changing. Science has dating things wrong before. What they do, basically, is date something multiple times and average it out. So, again, in reality, science isn't exact. Creationism can't be proved either...it's a belief. They're both based on faith and what you want to put your faith in.

What I believe is that God created the world. I don't know how He did it or how long it took and to me those details don't matter. Call me stupid if you want, but that's what I believe.

Evolution isn't a hypothesis, it is a theory because there is much observable evidence and predictions that are continually proven to be true. It says nothing about how anything began except speciation. So, no matter how much you yearn to believe creationism and evolution are on equal ground, it is just not even close to being true.

[Copasetic]

Then you tell me what the scientific process is. I thought it was come up with a hypothesis, then you run tests to prove if your theory is correct or not. There's a little more to it than that, but that's the jest of what I learned.

Clicking on my name (Copasetic) and "viewing member's profile" may lead you to enlightenment (and you might even find some links I've recently placed there for Christians!)

From "A bit on scientific theories"

And just to be a good sport

Law, Fact (scientific), Hypothesis, Theory

In order of importance these all go in cycle to me? It is only when something is finite does it change the level of importance. If there is a continual cycle then all could matter.

For example a fact, could lead to a hypothesis, which then becomes a theory and then finally a law.

Then that law could lead to a fact and then a hypothesis which then becomes a theory.

To me, in science, all are equally important.

Ahh, but they aren't.

In science we rank them

1. Theory

2. Law

3. Hypothesis

4. Fact

Theories are the most powerful type of idea in science because theories explain. They never become laws -Which are blanket, yet truthful statements about our world.

Let's look at an example, Are you familiar with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?

Newton's law from Wikipedia;

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

Great, but what does that tell us about our world? I know, you may say "Well Copasetic, that tells us that for masses attract each other and the force of attraction is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two masses," but what does that mean? What is it saying about our world?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It only says we have a really accurate way to describe how two masses interact, but it doesn't tell us why they do. For what reasons the they do.

To do that we need a theory from this fella named Einstein. Who comes along and tells us that the reason these masses are attracted to each other, is because space-time is curved by these masses. The more massive an object, the more it distorts the curvature of space-time. Einsteins theories explain rather than just dictate behavior. And this is above all else, the most important thing in science. That is what we do with science, we explain the world around us. Not just summarize it like a procrastinated book report, but to actually find meaning, dare I even say -A degree of truth, to our world.

So for something to become a theory, is a big deal. Because a theory has to be logically true (what I was talking about in the post above) as well as be empirically verified. Because of this, theories are not easily overturned and even when they are it is can be they are incorporated into a newer theory.

Now hypothesis, we demolish, construct, create, throw away all the time. Hypotheses are a dime a dozen and facts by themselves are nothing to science. Any one can have facts, but like laws they lack meaning. Fact; the sky is blue. So what? What does that mean? What does that say about our world? Nothing by itself.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

And while we're at it; Empirical, in case you are unfamiliar with it;

I think people get confused about logic, facts and truth. They can be kind of tedious concepts.

Religion certainly can use logical truths, but logical truths mean nothing without an application to the real world.

For instance,

All cats are all black, Garfield is not all black, therefore Garfield is not a cat.

That is a logical truth, a consequence of the logical statement: "all cats are all black", which means anything not all black cannot be a cat.

But what is this logical truth without real world application?

We know Garfield is a cat, because without even thinking it -We test the idea, that is find empirical truth. If Garfield is a cat, then he should /look/ like a cat. Having seen cats before our brains make the connection, or test our hypothesis (Garfield is really a felid). We could even apply more strict rule sets to testing this. We could do this by constructing sets of traits for cats and those for Garfield, analyze this data statistically (to see if it is prone to bias or statistically meaningful)-and then we can see how much they overlap, we can see our prediction that Garfield is indeed a cat, is true (Or we would reject our null hypothesis: Garfield is not a cat)

What we have done with all that is what science does.

That is the difference between science and religion -Or more specifically faith and science.

Religions construct logically true statements that need taken on faith, or by another popular method for acquiring truth (in religion) such as by divine revelation, Like; God revealing the Koran to Muhammad or Joesph Smith's theophany. Which we again take on faith that the revealer of this divine truth is being honest with us.

Going back to the example above;

All cats are all black, Garfield is not all black, therefore Garfield is not a cat.

In religion we can take this logical truth on faith. In contrast to religion science cannot. That is where religion and science part ways, logical truths in science must be taken to the real world to be verified. We cannot accept it on logic alone. Do our statements match real observations? Real world data? Even better do they allow us the ability to extrapolate and predict future tests of our idea.

Logical truth, in light of empirical truth is a very powerful method for understanding our world. But even then, we don't "prove" a truth as an absolute. Proof requires a truth is absolute, that it is a certainty. In science we always have to be ready to accept new evidence which can be logically true and verified against real world observations.

Religions can and do accept truths based on faith as absolute. Again, they differ.

To steal a quote from one of my favorite anthropologists:

"Science begins where bigotry and absolute certainty end. The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof."

-Ashley Montagu

[FurthurBB]

So what it really means is that the standard paradigm of evolution is merely a model or hypothesis but by using the same points of data, one can in turn come up with a rival model or hypothesis that works just as well as yours does, and thus come up with different conclusions, is that not so?

Not really because although your hypothesis might fit some of the facts, it does not fit all because you left out a lot of things including mitochondrial DNA and its known molecular clock, how ring species would form naturally, and any predictions that could be tested in an experiment.